[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11497-11508]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1230
      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 111, PROVIDING FOR 
 CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY BUREAU OF CONSUMER 
        FINANCIAL PROTECTION RELATING TO ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS

  Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 468 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 468

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 111) providing for congressional disapproval under 
     chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
     submitted by Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating 
     to ``Arbitration Agreements''. All points of order against 
     consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint 
     resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Financial Services; and 
     (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Walorski). The gentleman from Colorado 
is recognized for 1 hour.

[[Page 11498]]


  Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the 
underlying resolution.
  Congressional Review Act resolutions must follow a prescribed form 
according to law. This rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 111 
in keeping with that form.
  Madam Speaker, we are here today to prevent Federal overreach by the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, also known as the CFPB. According 
to the D.C. Circuit Court, this unaccountable government agency has 
more unilateral authority than any single commissioner or board member 
in any other independent agency in the United States Government.
  On July 10, 2017, the CFPB exercised that vast authority by issuing a 
776-page final rule that restricts the ability of consumers to enter 
into arbitration agreements. The CFPB's misguided rule effectively 
eliminates arbitration clauses, instead forcing consumers into 
significantly more burdensome court proceedings. Eliminating this 
overbearing rule is a big win for consumers.
  Arbitration is an alternative to the judicial system, and it often 
results in a better outcome for consumers. According to the CFPB's own 
study, arbitration can be up to 12 times faster than litigation. This 
study also found that a class action lawsuit's average payout was just 
$32 per person, not even close to the $5,389 awarded on average from 
arbitration.
  Moreover, it costs less for consumers to file an arbitration 
complaint than it does to file a new complaint in Federal court, making 
the arbitration system more accessible to all Americans.
  Arbitration allows parties to use an independent mediator, instead of 
hiring expensive lawyers, to settle a dispute. While the rule 
promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a bad deal 
for consumers, it is a huge win for trial lawyers, who make an average 
of $1 million per case.
  The legislation being considered today would eliminate the CFPB's 
prohibition on an individual's right to enter into contracts that 
include arbitration agreements.
  The Congressional Review Act allows Congress to eliminate a rule from 
the executive branch, and prevents a substantially similar rule from 
being proposed in its place.
  Checks and balances between the three branches of government are the 
cornerstone of our Constitution. The Congressional Review Act allows 
Congress to exercise our Article I authority and stop executive 
overreach that was never intended by the original legislation.
  The Congressional Review Act is a powerful tool because it only 
requires 51 votes to pass in the Senate. To date, Congress has passed 
14 CRAs that have been signed by the President. One by one, we have 
eliminated Obama administration rules that harm Americans and small 
businesses across this country.
  Despite the work we have ahead, these CRAs are important to bringing 
regulatory relief to millions of Americans. President Trump campaigned 
on a promise to end government overregulation that hurts Americans and 
small businesses. He turned those words into action by signing an 
executive order that requires two regulations be eliminated for every 
new regulation that is proposed.
  President Trump has exceeded those expectations in his first 6 
months. For every new proposed rule, he has eliminated 16 regulations.
  Unfortunately, he has limited tools to rein in the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, because it was designed to be unaccountable under 
Dodd-Frank. This is an agency that continues to be run by an unchecked 
Director. The structure of the bureau has even been ruled 
unconstitutional by the judicial branch.
  A few weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed legislation to 
restructure the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, restoring 
congressional oversight duties and moving the agency back under the 
regular legislative appropriations process. I hope the Senate will 
consider this bill and bring accountability to the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and the underlying 
bill, and eliminate the bad antiarbitration rule issued by the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying legislation, 
H.J. Res. 111, disapproval of the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau's arbitration rule.
  Before turning to the underlying legislation, I want to raise 
concerns about the bulk of the work this week, which is the so-called 
minibus appropriations bill, in which this body will seek to spend over 
$700 billion of deficit expenditures. That funding bill combines four 
major appropriations bills and represents more than half of 
discretionary spending. It includes our spending for the legislative 
branch, veterans, energy and water, and the Department of Defense.
  Unfortunately, there is additional deficit spending that my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided to put in the 
bill, providing $1.6 billion to build a border wall, directly contrary 
to the promises President Trump made on the campaign trail that another 
country would pay for the wall. Republicans are seeking to pass the 
bill to you, Madam Speaker, and our fellow taxpayers to pay for this 
wall, in direct violation of President Trump's promise.
  They also stripped out a bipartisan amendment by Representative Lee 
that would end the 2001 AUMF and require Congress to come up with a new 
Authorization for Use of Military Force within 8 months that was placed 
into this bill in committee. Representative Lee's amendment was 
stripped out by the Rules Committee despite it being in the committee 
mark and despite bipartisan support to require an Authorization for Use 
of Military Force. We really need to start making some decisions about 
the direction of our military. Representative Lee's amendment would 
have forced Congress to have that discussion.
  Congress, unfortunately, seems to only work--or works best--when we 
are on the clock, the day or two before the expiration of funding, the 
day or two before an arbitrary time limit. This would apply a similar 
test to force Congress to have a discussion around the Authorization 
for Use of Military Force.
  I have full confidence that, had that time not been met, Democrats 
and Republicans could have provided additional short-term extensions 
for the Authorization for Use of Military Force until such time 
Congress could come together to pass a new one, agree with the Senate, 
and send it to the President's desk.
  Now on to the matters at hand.
  This underlying resolution of disapproval weakens consumer 
protections while protecting big banks rather than consumers. This rule 
was crafted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to help restore 
consumer rights and give consumers the ability to join together when 
they are taken advantage of by big banks.
  Instead of debating ways to improve consumer protections or increase 
access to financial services, my colleagues instead have brought a 
Congressional Review Act resolution that would stop our own financial 
safety mechanisms from taking any future action on arbitration clauses 
in consumer financial products.
  Now, we have all seen these arbitration clauses. You might need a 
magnifying glass because the font is small,

[[Page 11499]]

the contract is large. Even sophisticated consumers often don't know 
that by unilaterally signing those rights away, they are removing their 
ability to address their grievances in court. In many cases, removing 
the ability to have any justice because when you have a large class, 
each of whom suffers a small amount of damage, even the cost of 
administering an arbitration claim can be prohibitive if the claim per 
affected individual is $50, $75, or $100. Absent these kinds of 
protections, you give broad license for big banks to rip off large 
numbers of consumers and take a small amount of money from each of 
them. That is what this rule is intended to prevent.
  The House Financial Services Committee did not hold any hearings on 
this rule. It didn't go through committee. It appeared just a few days 
ago when it was introduced. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
didn't have the opportunity to testify about their studies or their 
findings, or the process they went through to finalize the rule, 
including input from the general public.
  Congress has authorized the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to 
examine the use of arbitration agreements by financial institutions and 
consumer contracts; and, if necessary, to take appropriate steps to 
limit the use of them, to prevent arbitration agreements from being 
forced on consumers. In any particular case, both sides can certainly 
agree to arbitration. Given the choice, many consumers will choose 
arbitration. This is about forcing consumers and giving them no 
alternative but to give away their rights to sue in a court of law in 
favor of an arbitration process.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that 90 percent of 
arbitration agreements built into the fine point of financial consumer 
products actually do prohibit class action lawsuits. In cases involving 
credit card issuers, companies being sued used the arbitration clauses 
buried in the fine print contract to block class action lawsuits 65 
percent of the time.
  Again, even with the lower costs of administering an arbitration 
case, it is prohibitive if the claim per person is relatively small. So 
we are talking about situations where people are illegally ripped off 
of $20, of $100, of their annual credit card processing fee illegally 
charged. Their redress, absent a class action, is essentially 
nonexistent because even though the cost of pursuing an arbitration 
case is significantly less than the courts, they still can either take 
up an enormous amount of time or, if you hire outside counsel, 
thousands of dollars. Thank goodness, not the hundreds of thousands of 
dollars that a full court case can entail, but certainly thousands of 
dollars.
  And if you were deprived of $30 or $50, are you just supposed to 
accept it? Or can hundreds or thousands of people who were ripped off 
band together and seek justice, as this rule would allow for?
  Long before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau took any action, 
the Department of Defense already recognized that forced arbitration 
clauses in consumer loans to servicemembers stripped away the rights of 
servicemembers and ultimately banned forced arbitration clauses in 
consumer loan products made to servicemembers. We don't want people 
taking advantage of members of our military. So, too, we don't want 
anybody taking advantage of members of the American public.
  But we know that big banks don't want consumers to have more power 
when it comes to financial products. They prefer the deck remained 
stacked against consumers, even when a bank or a credit card company 
breaks the law.
  When it comes to financial service products, most consumers are 
entirely at the mercy of our financial institutions. These arbitration 
clauses are buried in pages and pages of small print and disclosures 
that are very technical for people with a college degree, no less a 
high school degree, no less not even graduating from high school. The 
consumer doesn't have the ability to modify the contract before they 
sign it--take it or leave it--or negotiate on any type of footing 
equally with the bank. They are left with a take-it-or-leave-it choice. 
According to the Bureau study, more than 75 percent of consumers 
surveyed did not know whether they were subject to an arbitration 
clause in their agreements, and less than 7 percent knew that those 
clauses limit their ability to bring a claim to court. That means 93 
percent of the people who sign these agreements don't even realize they 
are signing their right to sue away, and that is because they are 
buried in fine print, are unclear, and run contrary to the fundamental 
American principle of the ability to seek justice when you are wronged.
  This final rule restores consumer rights to band together when there 
is a systemic and widespread form of misconduct by a bank. This 
resolution of disapproval would stop consumers from even knowing if 
others were harmed in a similar manner by the same bank or lender so 
they could potentially band together.
  I am glad that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau final rule 
actually gave some power back to consumers. And now here we have the 
Republicans trying to take that power right away and give it back to 
the big banks.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to include in the Record a letter signed 
by 310 organizations that include civil rights, faith-based, and 
consumer advocacy groups that support the arbitration rule.
                                                    July 12, 2017.
     Re Final Rule on Arbitration Agreements.

     Monica Jackson,
     Office of the Executive Secretary, Consumer Financial 
         Protection Bureau, Washington DC.
       The 310 undersigned consumer, civil rights, labor, 
     community, and non-profit organizations write to state our 
     strong support for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
     (CFPB)'s final rule to limit pre-dispute binding mandatory 
     (or forced) arbitration clauses in consumer finance 
     contracts. The rule, which will restore consumers' ability to 
     band together in court to pursue claims, is a significant 
     step forward in the ongoing fight to curb predatory practices 
     in consumer financial products and services and to make these 
     markets fairer and safer.
       Lenders and other financial services companies use forced 
     arbitration to push consumers out of court and into a private 
     arbitration system that is tilted against them. Forced 
     arbitration eliminates the right to a civil jury trial, 
     limits discovery, restricts or prohibits public disclosure of 
     proceedings and outcomes, and makes meaningful appeals 
     virtually impossible. It also often prohibits consumers from 
     banding together in a class action to hold the company 
     responsible.
       Recent scandals again demonstrate the very real harm forced 
     arbitration causes consumers. Reports show that customers had 
     been trying to sue financial services institutions over 
     fraudulent accounts going back a number of years. However, 
     some banks forced those customers into secret, binding 
     arbitration by invoking fine print in consumers' legitimate 
     account agreements to block them from suing over reasons as 
     outrageous as fake accounts, also helping to keep the scandal 
     out of the public eye. Even in cases where widespread fraud 
     has been exposed, banks continue to invoke these fine-print 
     clauses to kill lawsuits stemming from their illegal acts and 
     block consumer recovery.
       The CFPB's thorough arbitration study further documents how 
     forced arbitration blocks consumer access to courts, 
     shielding banks and lenders from meaningful accountability 
     for their unlawful behavior. Finalizing the proposed rule 
     will restore crucial class action rights that deter systemic 
     abuses and bring much-needed transparency to consumer 
     financial arbitration.


 The CFPB Study Data Shows That Forced Arbitration Eliminates Consumer 
            Claims and Shields Companies from Accountability

       The CFPB's study verified the prevalence of forced 
     arbitration clauses--including class action bans--in consumer 
     financial contracts and found that this practice impacts tens 
     of millions of consumers. Yet it also revealed that consumers 
     typically have no idea they are signing away their right to 
     sue in court when they participate in the financial 
     marketplace.
       The most obvious impact of forced arbitration clauses is 
     that they block most consumer claims from going forward at 
     all. Class action bans prevent consumers from bringing 
     complaints of fraud or other abusive or deceptive practices 
     in financial services because the individual value of these 
     claims is often too small for a single consumer to afford to 
     bring alone. Without the option to join together in a class 
     action, just 25 consumers with claims of under $1,000 pursued 
     arbitration each year. In a county of over 320 million, these 
     numbers leave no doubt that class action bans effectively 
     wipe out consumer claims and thus shield corporate wrongdoers 
     from liability. In the few

[[Page 11500]]

     claims that went to arbitration, the study also confirmed 
     that forced arbitration overwhelmingly favors industry over 
     consumers.


 Class Actions Provide Great Benefit for Consumers Cheated by Systemic 
             Wrongdoing and Deter Risky or Illegal Conduct

       The data makes clear that class actions provide a practical 
     way for groups of consumers who have suffered the same kind 
     of abuse from the same corporate wrongdoer to join together 
     to attempt to hold the financial institution accountable. The 
     CFPB study found that 34 million consumers received a total 
     of $2.2 billion in cash payments, debt forbearance, and other 
     in-kind relief from 2008-2012--not including any attorneys' 
     fees or court costs.
       These findings were echoed in an empirical study by 
     disinterested academics, which found consumer class actions 
     against illegal overdraft fees ``deliver[ed] fair 
     compensation to a significant portion of class members.'' 
     Several major banks settled class actions that claimed the 
     banks had purposely reordered consumer transactions to 
     maximize the amount of overdraft fees charged to the 
     consumer. This study found that plaintiffs in these cases 
     recovered up to ``65% of damages, with the variation based 
     largely on the strength of the class's claims and the 
     likelihood of winning certification of the class.'' Yet 
     unknown thousands of other consumers subject to similarly 
     unlawful overdraft fee practices likely got little or no 
     relief when class actions against their banks were dismissed 
     due to arbitration clauses.
       Even assuming that their claims would be fairly resolved in 
     arbitration, leaving 34 million consumers to find their own 
     attorney, establish the individual facts of their case, and 
     take time off work to attend an arbitration will never be 
     more efficient than pooling time and resources between 
     millions of consumers harmed in the same way by the same bank 
     or lender to challenge abusive practices. Indeed, additional 
     empirical scholarship demonstrates that most consumers are 
     unaware when they have been harmed, unaware that the harm 
     violates a law, or have decided that filing individual claims 
     is not worth their time and expense.
       Collective action is critically important, not only for 
     enabling those already victimized to obtain justice, but also 
     for deterring bad behavior and preventing harm to other 
     victims. While each individual consumer may only lose $25 or 
     $50 to a fraudulent charge or illegal fee, for example, 
     unlawful practices implemented at a systemic level can add up 
     to millions or more in ill-gotten gains for banks and lenders 
     who violate the law. Government enforcers have limited 
     resources, and the prospect of class actions helps ensure 
     that banks and lenders obey legal requirements that protect 
     consumers.


     The Rule's Reporting Requirements Add Crucial Transparency to 
                              Arbitration

       Our organizations strongly support the proposed provision 
     to begin shining a light on individual arbitrations through 
     reporting requirements. Unlike our legal system, which is 
     built upon hundreds of years of precedent, common law 
     principles, and statutory standards of fairness and ethics, 
     arbitration firms have few constraints on their practices and 
     scant record of their proceedings. The substantially shorter 
     history of consumer arbitration has nonetheless produced both 
     anecdotal claims of unethical behavior and documented 
     systemic abuses by unregulated arbitration films.
       The rule's reporting requirements will lend crucial 
     transparency and accountability to a previously opaque 
     system. Increased transparency can help consumers make 
     informed decisions when choosing how to pursue their claim, 
     in line with well-established principles of the free market. 
     Data collected by the CFPB will also help other government 
     entities, as well as the general public, ensure that 
     arbitrators operate within the law and treat all parties 
     fairly.


 The Rule is in the Public Interest and for the Protection of Consumers

       Because forced arbitration undermines compliance with laws 
     and creates an uneven playing field between corporations that 
     use forced arbitration and those that allow for greater 
     consumer choice in dispute resolution, it is in the public 
     interest and in the interest of consumer protection to 
     prohibit or strictly curtail the use of forced arbitration 
     clauses in consumer financial contracts.
       We commend the CFPB for finalizing its rule to restore 
     consumers' right to choose how to resolve disputes with 
     financial institutions and address the public harm caused by 
     forced arbitration, as thoroughly documented in its three-
     year, comprehensive study.
       Thank you for the opportunity to share our views.


                          National Signatories

       9to5 National Association of Working Women; Action In 
     Maturity, Inc.; Affordable Housing Alliance; AFL-CIO; Alianza 
     Americas; Alliance for Justice; Allied Progress; American 
     Association for Justice; American Association of University 
     Women (AAUW); American Council of the Blind; American Family 
     Voices; American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees (AFSCME); American Federation of Teachers; 
     Americans for Democratic Action; Americans for Financial 
     Reform; Association of University Centers on Disabilities; 
     Bankruptcy Law Center; The Bazelon Center for Mental Health 
     Law; Center for Economic Integrity; Center for Economic 
     Justice.
       Center for Global Policy Solutions; Center for Justice & 
     Democracy; Center for Popular Democracy; Center for 
     Progressive Reform; Center for Responsible Lending; Centro 
     Legal de la Raza; CFED; Committee to Support the Antitrust 
     Laws; Consumer Action; Consumer Federation of America; 
     Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety; Consumers Union; 
     Consumer Voice; Daily Kos; Demos; Disability Rights Education 
     & Defense Fund; Economic Analysis and Research Network 
     (EARN); Economic Policy Institute; The Employee Rights 
     Advocacy Institute For Law & Policy; Equal Justice Society.
       Equal Justice Works; Fair Share; The Financial Clinic; Food 
     & Water Watch; Fund Democracy; Government Accountability 
     Project; Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human Rights; 
     Hindu American Foundation; Homeowners Against Deficient 
     Dwellings; Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy; The 
     Institute for College Access & Success; Institute for Science 
     and Human Values; Interfaith Center on Corporate 
     Responsibility; International Association for College 
     Admission Counseling; Jobs With Justice; Justice in Aging; 
     The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; League 
     of United Latin American Citizens; Main Street Alliance; 
     Manufactured Housing Action; Mission Asset Fund.
       NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; 
     National Association for College Admission Counseling; 
     National Association of Consumer Advocates; National 
     Association of Social Workers (NASW); National Center for Law 
     and Economic Justice; National Center for Lesbian Rights; 
     National Center for Transgender Equality; National Coalition 
     for Asian Pacific American Community Development; National 
     Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC); National Council of 
     Jewish Women; National Council of La Raza; National Consumer 
     Law Center (on behalf of its low income clients); National 
     Consumers League; National Employment Lawyers Association; 
     National Employment Law Project; National Fair Housing 
     Alliance; National Health Law Program; National Latino 
     Farmers & Ranchers Trade Association; National Legal Aid and 
     Defender Association.
       National LGBTQ Task Force; National Partnership for Women & 
     Families; National Organization for Women; National Urban 
     League; National Women's Law Center; New Rules for Global 
     Finance; Occupational Safety & Health Law Project; Other98; 
     People's Action; Privacy Rights Clearinghouse; Progressive 
     Congress Action Fund; Protect All Children's Environment; 
     Public Citizen; Public Justice; Public Knowledge; Public Law 
     Center; The Rootstrikers Project at Demand Progress; 
     Salvadoran American National Network (SANN); Service 
     Employees International Union (SEIU); Small Business 
     Majority.
       Southern Poverty Law Center; TURN--The Utility Reform 
     Network; United Auto Workers (UAW); United Church of Christ 
     Justice and Witness Ministries; United Policyholders; U.S. 
     PIRG; Veterans Education Success; Woodstock Institute; 
     Workplace Fairness; Worksafe; World Hunger Education, 
     Advocacy & Training (WHEAT); Young Invincibles.


                      State and Local Signatories

       Alabama: Woodmere Neighborhood Association--AL.
       Arkansas: Arkansans Against Abusive Payday Lending--AR; 
     Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families--AR.
       Arizona: Arizona Community Action Association--AZ; Arizona 
     PIRG--AZ; Gila County Community Services--AZ; Mesa Community 
     Action Network--AZ; Save the Family Foundation of Arizona--
     AZ.
       California: California Reinvestment Coalition--CA; 
     CALPIRG--CA; Center for Public Interest Law, University of 
     San Diego School of Law--CA; Consumer Attorneys of 
     California--CA; Consumer Federation of California--CA; East 
     Bay Community Law Center--CA; Golden State Manufactured-home 
     Owners League--CA; Law Foundation of Silicon Valley--CA; The 
     Greenlining Institute--CA.
       Colorado: 9to5 Colorado--CO; Bell Policy Center--CO; Build 
     Our Homes Right--CO; Colorado AFL-CIO--CO; Colorado Alliance 
     of Retired Americans--CO; Colorado Council of Churches--CO; 
     Colorado Fiscal Institute--CO; Colorado Latino Forum, Denver 
     Chapter--CO; Colorado Latino Leadership, Advocacy and 
     Research Organization (CLLARO)--CO; Colorado Public Interest 
     Research Group (PIRG)--CO; Colorado Trial Lawyers 
     Association--CO; NAACP State Conference--CO, MT, WY; National 
     Council of Jewish Women, Colorado Section--CO; The Interfaith 
     Alliance of Colorado--CO.
       Connecticut: Capital For Change, Inc.--CT; CT. Citizen 
     Action Group--CT; Connecticut Legal Services, Inc.--CT; 
     ConnPIRG--CT.
       Delaware: Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia--
     DC; ACLU of Delaware, Inc.--DE; Community Legal Aid Society, 
     Inc.--DE; Delaware Alliance for Community Advancement--DE; 
     Delaware Community Reinvestment Action Council, Inc.--DE; 
     Delaware Manufactured Homeowners Association (DMHOA)--DE.

[[Page 11501]]

       Florida: Catalyst Miami--FL; Fair Housing Center of the 
     Greater Palm Beaches--FL; Florida Alliance for Consumer 
     Protection--FL; Florida PIRG--FL; Jacksonville Area Legal 
     Aid, Inc.--FL; Progress Florida--FL.
       Georgia: Georgia PIRG--GA; Georgia Rural Urban Summit--GA; 
     Georgia Watch--GA.
       Iowa: Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement--IA; Iowa 
     PIRG--IA.
       Illinois: Chicago Jobs Council--IL; Citizen Action--IL; 
     Illinois Asset Building Group--IL; Illinois Association for 
     College Admission Counseling--IL; Illinois PIRG--IL; 
     Manufactured Home Owners Association of Illinois--IL; 
     Metropolitan Tenants Organization--IL; Partners In Community 
     Building, Inc.--IL; Project IRENE--IL.
       Indiana: Habitat for Humanity of Northeast Indiana--IN; 
     HomesteadCS--IN; Indiana University McKinney School of Law--
     IN.
       Kansas: Interfaith Housing Services, Inc.--KS; Labette 
     Assistance Center--KS.
       Kentucky: Homeless & Housing Coalition of Kentucky--KY; 
     Kentucky Council of Churches--KY Kentucky Equal Justice 
     Center--KY.
       Louisiana: The Middleburg Institute/LABEST--LA; PREACH--LA.
       Massachusetts: Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee, 
     Inc.--MA; Community Action!--MA; Consumer World--MA; 
     Massachusetts Consumers Council, Inc.--MA; MASSPIRG--MA; The 
     Midas Collaborative--MA.
       Maryland: Baltimore CASH Campaign--MD; Baltimore 
     Neighborhoods, Inc.--MD; Belair-Edison Neighborhoods, Inc.--
     MD; Civil Justice, Inc.--MD; Housing Options & Planning 
     Enterprises, Inc.--MD; Howard County Office of Consumer 
     Protection--MD; Maryland CASH Campaign--MD; Maryland Consumer 
     Rights Coalition--MD; Maryland PIRG--MD; Maryland United for 
     Peace and Justice--MD; Public Justice Center--MD.
       Michigan: Michigan Association for College Admission 
     Counseling--MI; Michigan Disability Rights Coalition--MI; 
     PIRG in Michigan (PIRGIM)--MI; Progress Michigan--MI.
       Minnesota: Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid--MN; Minnesota 
     Association for College Admission Counseling--MN.
       Missouri: Missouri Association for College Admission 
     Counseling--MO; Missouri Faith Voices--MO; Missouri PIRG--MO; 
     MORE--Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment--MO.
       Mississippi: Mississippi Center for Justice--MS.
       Montana: AFSCME Montana Council 9--MT; Greater Yellowstone 
     Central Labor Council--MT Laborers Local #1686--MT; Montana 
     Organizing Project--MT Rural Dynamics, Inc.--MT.
       North Carolina: Financial Pathways of the Piedmont--NC; 
     North Carolina Consumers Council--NC; North Carolina Justice 
     Center--NC; NCPIRG--NC; OnTrack WNC Financial Education & 
     Counseling--NC; Reinvestment Partners--NC; The Collaborative 
     NC--NC; Winston Salem Forsyth County Asset Building 
     Coalition--NC.
       North Dakota: North Dakota Economic Security and Prosperity 
     Alliance--ND; Sacred Pipe Resource Center--ND.
       Nebraska: Nebraska Appleseed--NE.
       New Hampshire: Granite State Organizing Project--NH; 
     NHPIRG--NH.
       New Jersey: Consumers League of New Jersey--NJ; Legal 
     Services of New Jersey--NJ; Manufactured Home Owners of New 
     Jersey, Inc.--NJ; New Jersey Association for College 
     Admission Counseling--NJ; New Jersey Citizen Action--NJ; NJ 
     PIRG--NJ; Sisters of St. Dominic of Caldwell--NJ.
       New Mexico: Center for Economic Integrity--New Mexico 
     Office--NM; NMPIRG--NM.
       Nevada: Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, Inc.--NV; 
     Opportunity Alliance Nevada--NV.
       New York: Bankruptcy Law Center--NY; Central New York 
     Citizens in Action, Inc.--NY; Community Service Society of 
     New York--NY; Empire Justice Center--NY; Empire State 
     Consumer Project--NY; Housing and Family Services of Greater 
     New York, Inc.--NY; Hudson River Housing--NY; JASA Legal 
     Services for the Elderly in Queens--NY; Keuka Housing 
     Council, Inc.--NY; Long Island Housing Services, Inc.--NY; 
     Make the Road New York--NY; MFY Legal Services, Inc.--NY; 
     NELA/NY (New York Affiliate of National Employment Lawyers 
     Association)--NY; New Economy Project--NY; New York Legal 
     Assistance Group--NY; New York Public Interest Research Group 
     (NYPIRG)--NY; New York State Association for College 
     Admission Counseling--NY; Public Utility Law Project of New 
     York--NY; Western New York Law Center--NY.
       Ohio: Cleveland Tenants Organization--OH; COHHIO--OH; 
     Habitat for Humanity of Findlay/Hancock County--OH; Miami 
     Valley Fair Housing Center, Inc.--OH; Neighborhood Housing 
     Services of Greater Cleveland--OH; Ohio Association of Local 
     Reentry Coalitions--OH; Ohio PIRG--OH; Ohio Poverty Law 
     Center--OH.
       Oregon: Innovative Changes--OR; Oregon Consumer League--OR 
     Oregon PIRG (OSPIRG)--OR.
       Pennsylvania: Integra Home Counseling, Inc.--PA; Keystone 
     Progress--PA; PathWays PA--PA; Pennsylvania Association for 
     College Admission Counseling--PA; Pennsylvania National 
     Organization for Women--PA; PennPIRG--PA.
       Rhode Island: RIPIRG--RI.
       South Carolina: Columbia Consumer Education Council--SC; SC 
     Association for Community Economic Development--SC; South 
     Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center--SC.
       Tennessee: New Level Community Development Corporation--TN; 
     Tennessee Citizen Action--TN.
       Texas: Chinese Community Center, Houston--TX; Equal Justice 
     Center--TX; Family Houston--TX; Literacy Advance of Houston--
     TX; Take Back Your Rights PAC--TX; Texas Appleseed--TX; Texas 
     Consumer Association--TX; Texas Watch--TX; TexPIRG--TX; 
     United Way of Greater Houston--TX.
       Virginia: Virginia Citizens Consumer Council--VA; Virginia 
     Poverty Law Center--VA; Virginia Organizing--VA.
       Vermont: Vermont PIRG (VPIRG)--VT.
       Washington: Columbia Legal Services--WA; The Northwest 
     Consumer Law Center--WA; SafeWork Washington--WA; WashPIRG--
     WA.
       Wisconsin: Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee--WI; WISPIRG--WI.
       West Virginia: Mountain State Justice--WV; WV Center on 
     Budget and Policy--WV; West Virginia Citizen Action Group--
     WV.
       Regional: Potomac and Chesapeake Association for College 
     Admission Counseling; Southern Association for College 
     Admission Counseling; Tri-State Coalition for Responsible 
     Investment; Western Association for College Admission 
     Counseling.

  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, this letter, which I think my colleagues 
will find convincing, has 310 groups that have signed on in support of 
this rule, including groups from across the ideological spectrum, 
across the States, many faith-based groups, and many others, including 
from my friend from Colorado's and my home State, the Interfaith 
Alliance of Colorado; the National Council of Jewish Women, Colorado 
Section; the NAACP State Conference of Colorado; the Colorado Fiscal 
Institute; the Colorado Council of Churches; the Colorado Alliance of 
Retired Americans, and many others.

                              {time}  1245

  So I am glad that this will appear in the Record for all of Congress 
to see. I will encourage my colleagues to read this letter and see who 
signed it before casting your vote on the repeal of this rule, the 
Congressional disapproval resolution. So this will appear in the 
Record, and I know that my colleagues will study that Record before 
making their decision.
  Prior to the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 
Federal consumer protection laws were enforced by a number of different 
regulators and different agencies. This was uneven and, after the 2008 
financial crisis, I was personally glad that we were able to pull 
together the efforts to protect consumers in the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau.
  But despite their success, Republicans have been going after the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ever since. Despite record profits 
by banks and Wall Street, here we are trying to go back to a time when 
there was nobody to keep them in check. Despite the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau returning nearly $12 billion to harmed consumers, the 
Republicans continue to attack the agency.
  This is entirely the purpose that the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau was created, this type of rule. Congress specifically authorized 
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to study forced arbitration 
agreements, and determine what steps were necessary.
  The Bureau undertook an extensive rulemaking process that had public 
comments. I hope my colleagues across the aisle who support this repeal 
were active in that public comment process because that was an 
important time to be heard. The banks participated in that, consumer 
groups, and so many other stakeholders before the final rule was 
issued.
  My colleagues across the aisle have not offered any evidence in 
support of this resolution of disapproval. Why are you seeking to strip 
rights away from consumers in this fashion?
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that just 400 
consumers per year pursue claims in arbitration, with only 16 receiving 
any cash relief. Again, when you are ripped off of a relatively small 
amount of money, you don't have redress in the courts as a sole 
plaintiff. You don't have redress--I shouldn't say you don't; you 
technically do--you don't have an economic

[[Page 11502]]

form of redress in the courts, and you don't have an economically 
viable form of redress through arbitration.
  So the only true mechanism, if you have a million people, each of 
whom are deprived of $20 or $50, the only realistic legal mechanism is 
a class action lawsuit, which this rule would protect.
  There is also no evidence to show, no studies--I would challenge my 
colleagues to cite them if there are--to show that removing this type 
of clause can somehow increase costs to consumers.
  Frankly, this resolution of disapproval is just a giveaway to big 
banks at the expense of you, me, everybody who has a credit card, 
everybody who has a loan--the wrong direction for the country.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the author of this resolution.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call on all of my 
colleagues to support this resolution and the underlying legislation, 
H.J. Res. 111.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's antiarbitration rule will 
cause a great deal of harm to consumers, including consumers who wish 
to settle a dispute with a firm in a timely and effective fashion, as 
well as other consumers who will see their options and choices 
diminished and their costs increased by this rule.
  The CFPB's rule will hurt the very people the CFPB claims it is 
supposed to help by depriving individuals of the efficient and 
effective process of arbitration. The CFPB itself acknowledged that 
arbitration is 12 times faster, on average, than class actions.
  In today's fast-paced economy, hardworking Americans may want to 
pursue a quicker option than becoming a party to costly and time-
consuming litigation that can take years.
  Not only are class actions burdensome in terms of time, but they 
often produce negligible benefits for the plaintiffs in question. In 
fact, class actions reviewed in the CFPB study resulted in an average 
recovery of only $32 per class member. This is so minuscule that the 
firms being sued are forced to charge their customers additional fees, 
which fees may be larger than the initial recovery to cover the costs 
of the firm's legal fees. This often leaves customers worse off 
financially than if they had never chosen to settle their dispute.
  Contrast this negligible or nonexistent relief and headache it causes 
consumers with the average $5,300 of relief that consumers obtained 
through arbitration in the cases that the CFPB reviewed in its own 
study. Contrast the $32 average individual recovery as well with the 
average $1 million that plaintiff lawyers make per settled case.
  Madam Speaker, consider also the fact that 87 percent of class 
actions generate no benefits for consumers whatsoever because they are 
dismissed by the Court or settled with the named plaintiff only.
  In addition to the direct harm the CFPB's antiarbitration rule will 
cause to consumers, it will also have negative effects on a variety of 
companies and firms that will have to prepare themselves for falling 
victim to costly litigation. In light of that, they will be unlikely to 
direct any financial resources toward providing their customers even 
the option for arbitration.
  In addition, many firms are unavailable to survive such costly 
litigation, meaning they will either go out of business or be forced to 
stop offering certain products and services.
  How will this benefit consumers?
  It won't. It will make their purchases costlier and the products and 
services they need more difficult to find.
  If you want to help ensure consumer recoveries and justice--and we 
all do--depriving them of the most efficient and most remunerative 
option is not the answer. Sadly, that is precisely what will result 
from the CFPB's misguided, anticonsumer rule.
  The CFPB's antiarbitration rule will close the door to recovery for 
consumers, but open the door for million-dollar trial attorney's fees. 
The underlying legislation considered today will reopen the door to 
consumer recovery.
  Mr. POLIS. It is wonderful to have so many Coloradans here, isn't it, 
Madam Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Absolutely.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett), another great State that borders the State of 
Colorado.
  Mr. DOGGETT. It once included the State of Colorado, or part of it.
  Madam Speaker, I think Republicans are just scared. They are afraid 
to leave town this week without doing another favor for Wall Street, 
and this proposal to undermine consumer rights is the next gift that 
they want to bestow on the big banks.
  Republicans can never seem to find their voice, no matter how 
outrageous the latest Trump tweet might be. They cannot pass meaningful 
legislation on other subjects, but they feel compelled to answer when 
Wall Street comes ``a calling,'' as it has on this bill.
  Only last month, Republicans approved a bill to give Trump the power 
to fire the chief cop on the beat; that would be the Director of the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, who Trump could now dump for 
actually trying to do his job of protecting consumers from abusive 
financial practices.
  Of course, we see daily that Trump thinks the White House is just a 
new venue for the latest sequel of ``The Apprentice,'' with him 
declaring ``you're fired'' to one person after another, no matter how 
much damage he does to our national security or to the economic 
security of families that are struggling to make a go of it all over 
America.
  Well, today's Republican gift to Wall Street is about denying any 
effective remedy to those who are abused by big banks. A bank can 
rightfully go to court if a consumer abuses it, and that happens every 
day in courts across America, with good reason, because it is not a 
one-way street.
  But in the non-negotiable, deceitful fine print at the back of the 
contract, the bank can deny the consumer the very same opportunity to 
go to court if that consumer is abused. It is called arbitration, but 
what it really means is that if a consumer has been treated wrong, 
neither a judge nor a jury can ever evaluate the facts and conclude for 
the consumer.
  Since usually the arbitrator depends upon the same bank or group of 
banks to get repeat business, the arbitrator has an incentive to rule 
against the consumer and for the bank. Often arbitration is little 
better than going to the bank's own attorney and asking: Do you think 
your client did anything wrong? And if so, should they do any more than 
say ``I'm sorry''?
  Arbitration is the very scheme that Wells Fargo relied upon to 
obstruct any opportunity for ordinary consumers who tried to hold their 
bank accountable for creating accounts to which they never gave any 
consent and charging them for it. Wells Fargo used those arbitration 
clauses to kick the consumers out of court and to continue its fraud 
against consumers across America for another 2 years. That is the kind 
of practice that we will have more of if this legislation is approved.
  You know, in the Military Lending Act of 2007, Congress showed the 
good sense to try to protect our servicemembers who are defending our 
country all over the world in certain of their loan agreements from 
having a lender impose a mandatory arbitration agreement. And what, 
today, we should be doing is supporting similar protections for other 
Americans who can be exposed to the same type of abuse.
  Today's bill to undermine consumer protection is opposed by The 
Military Coalition and 29 other servicemember and veterans groups 
representing millions of people. This sorry bill is also opposed by a 
number--I think literally hundreds of consumer, civil rights, labor, 
and community groups.
  All we are saying in rejecting this bill is to give consumers their 
day in court, give them the same rights the banks want. In fact, treat 
consumers as if they were banks because they should be treated with the 
same dignity and the same rights; and we do that by rejecting this bill 
and rejecting it soundly.

[[Page 11503]]


  Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of the Financial Institutions 
and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Buck) for his help in quickly bringing this resolution to the 
floor.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the 
underlying resolution, which would block the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau from denying the American people the use of 
arbitration as a means to resolve consumer complaints.
  Since the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 
consumer costs have gone up and access to financial products has been 
severely restricted. In some cases, access has evaporated altogether.
  The Bureau's arbitration rule is proof of what we have said for 
years: the CFPB does not operate in the best interest of American 
consumers. It does not protect the American people, their access to 
financial products, or their ability to achieve financial independence.
  Take as evidence the CFPB's own study on arbitration. It shows that 
just 13 percent of class action suits actually provided a benefit to 
consumers, with an average payout of $32. Let me say that again: an 
average payout of $32.
  Arbitration, on the other hand, provides an average of more than 
$5,000--let me say that again: over $5,000--to the aggrieved parties.
  Again, these figures come from the Bureau's own analysis, their own 
study. The fact that they cannot somehow justify this rule in the name 
of consumer protection should offend every single person on this floor 
today, Madam Speaker.
  Simply put, this rule is anticonsumer. It hurts the very people the 
CFPB purports to protect. It is yet another example of the Washington-
knows-best attitude that makes the American people so mad.
  This is also why Congress has the oversight tools granted under the 
Congressional Review Act. In this instance, it is time for Congress to 
intervene on behalf of the people we represent.
  We have argued about the CFPB in the past, but the reality is that 
this rule, in particular, will have devastating consequences for 
American consumers. It should serve as a dramatic wake-up call for the 
need to restrain what is the most powerful and unaccountable government 
agency in the history of our Nation.
  I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus) and Chairman 
Hensarling for their steadfast leadership on this very important issue.
  Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues for their support on the rule and 
the underlying measure.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member, Mr. Polis, for 
yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the rule and underlying bill by 
my Republican colleagues. The Republican bill favors big Wall Street 
megabanks and financial interests over the American people. I would ask 
my Republican friends: Don't you remember the financial crash of 2008 
and who created it?
  Their bill repeals a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule 
which cuts down on those companies' abilities to use so-called forced 
arbitration clauses which prevent cheated or defrauded consumers from 
going to court. In other words, they prevent the victims from going to 
court. They want to handcuff the customers, not the megabanks that took 
them to the cleaners.
  This takes us back to the days of when the fine print in the credit 
card or other financial agreement prevented consumers from banding 
together in class action lawsuits to challenge illegal behavior by the 
most powerful financial giants in the world. Try to deal with one of 
them as an individual. They don't even return phone calls, for heaven's 
sake. You get in that robo system for hours and hours, and then the 
phone call cuts off.
  Republicans want to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau, even after the agency's work for consumers resulted in $12 
billion in relief to 27 million Americans who were harmed, and that is 
just the beginning.
  Why is this Republican-led Congress so keen on protecting companies 
like Wells Fargo that used arbitration clauses and class action bans to 
create fraudulent accounts, overcharge customers with debit fees and 
mortgages, and even avoid responsibility for their misconduct? Criminal 
misconduct.
  You can laugh. Come and meet the millions of people who have lost 
their homes across this country or are underwater on their mortgages. 
There is no justice for them.
  The idea that banks can rip off consumers by abusing obscure clauses 
buried deep in their contracts is totally outrageous.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. KAPTUR. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule banning 
the use of these clauses is simply a commonsense step to ensure that 
all consumers have equal access to justice. This is the people's House. 
We should protect consumers from the wolves. Our job is to keep them at 
bay, not make it easier for them to prey on the American people. This 
is not what President Trump ran on.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and stand with 
America's consumers over special interests, particularly the financial 
predators that brought this country to ruin.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, for months now we have been debating bills that hurt 
hardworking Americans--bills that kick millions, tens of millions, of 
people off health insurance; bills that gut safety and environmental 
protections that would keep our air clean; bills that prioritize the 
interests of Wall Street over Main Street.
  This is not what my constituents want. It is also not what the 
constituents of many of us want. Madam Speaker, for this reason, 
Democrats have unveiled an agenda to increase wages, reduce costs for 
everyday expenses, and give workers the training they need to compete 
in 21st century jobs.
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Pocan's Leveraging 
Effective Apprenticeships to Rebuild National Skills Act, H.R. 2933, 
which would promote effective apprenticeships that would give students 
and workers more opportunities to find good-paying jobs.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, we have less than 4 days left before the 
scheduled August recess. I hope in that time we can focus on 
strengthening the economy and empowering consumers rather than taking 
away consumers' rights, like this bill does.
  We should focus on fixing our broken immigration system to create 
more economic growth and reduce our deficit, and we should create jobs 
and make sure that more people are covered by healthcare, not less.
  Instead, here we are, spending time on the floor of the House 
stripping away consumer protections and spending American taxpayer 
money on an unwanted border wall, in direct violation of President 
Trump's promise.
  Madam Speaker, I oppose this rule, and I oppose the underlying 
legislation. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on both, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been a continuous 
example

[[Page 11504]]

of Federal overreach. Once again, bureaucrats in Washington have 
created a rule that will hurt consumers and make their lives more 
difficult.
  The last 8 years of overregulation have crippled our economy. Today, 
we have a chance to end this antiarbitration rule and empower consumers 
with an alternative to spending years in a courtroom.
  We can't let concerns about the trial lawyer lobby impact the way we 
treat consumers. Trial lawyers love this rule enacted by the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau because they will be the biggest 
beneficiaries. They will walk home with the big winnings, while the 
individuals who have been harmed walk away with little.
  Arbitration allows harmed individuals to receive payouts on the 
merits of their case without enriching the pockets of trial lawyers at 
the same time. This legislation is for consumers. It is for the average 
American who relies on our financial system every day.
  Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Sessions and Chairman Hensarling for 
bringing this bill to the floor. I urge my colleagues now to vote 
``yes'' on the resolution, and then to vote ``yes'' on the underlying 
bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

            An Amendment to H. Res. 468 Offered by Mr. Polis

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     2933) to promote effective registered apprenticeships, for 
     skills, credentials, and employment, and for other purposes. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
     the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 2933.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of 
House Joint Resolution 111 which would eliminate the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau's rule prohibiting mandatory arbitration clauses in 
financial services contracts. These clauses, which are buried in the 
fine print of banking contracts, strip consumers who are scammed, 
cheated, or defrauded by big banks of their constitutional right to 
seek justice in our nation's courts. Instead, they force consumers to 
go through a secretive non-judicial process overseen by an arbitration 
provider chosen by the bank. According to a study conducted by the 
CFPB, when these disputes are resolved through arbitration, consumers 
receive relief in only 9 percent of claims and even when consumers do 
win, they recover, on average, only 12 cents for every dollar claimed. 
I support the CFPB rule and oppose this effort to allow big banks to 
deny customers access to the justice system.
  The elimination of the forced arbitration rule protects the special 
interests of Wall Street and hurts consumers. I therefore urge my 
colleagues to vote no on this Resolution.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, for far too long, people's legal rights 
have been limited by the use of forced arbitration clauses in contracts 
for consumer financial products and services. Forced arbitration 
clauses, also called mandatory pre-dispute clauses, prevent cheated or 
defrauded American consumers from going to court to challenge 
wrongdoing by big banks, cell phone providers, auto leasing and auto 
financing firms, credit repair, payday lenders, debt collectors and 
credit card companies. Most arbitration clauses for financial products 
also prohibit consumers from participating in class actions. Forced 
arbitration clauses have been opposed by conservatives and 
progressives.
  Forced arbitration is a secret process where consumers seek redress 
at private firms chosen by the financial institution. This rigged 
system is why banks and lenders receive more than a million dollars per 
year paid out to them by their customers in forced arbitration, 
compared to just $86,216 returned to consumers. While advocates for the 
financial sector are correct that (sixteen) consumers recover an 
average of $5,400 in arbitration every year, they leave out the fact 
that banks and lenders receive an average award of $13,195 when they 
win--and they win 93 percent of the time. Indeed, a recent report found 
that consumers paid more restitution to Wells Fargo in arbitration than 
the other way around between 2009 and 2016, the prime years of its fake 
account scandal.
  After years of effort, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
finalized a rule restoring American consumers' right to join together 
in court when harmed by systemic and widespread misconduct in the 
financial marketplace. The rule does not eliminate forced arbitration, 
but it would make individual secret arbitration more transparent by 
publishing arbitration complaints and outcomes. It also permits class 
action lawsuits.
  Instead of celebrating a rule that prevents financial interests from 
evading responsibility, Republicans seek to stop this rule under the 
Congressional Review Act (CRA). Today, they presented H.J. Res. 111.
  It is a vote to prevent consumers from receiving adequate 
compensation for fraud, deceptive and predatory practices.

[[Page 11505]]

  A vote for H.J. Res. 111 is a vote to deny Americans their 
constitutional right to access the legal process.
  H.J. Res. 111 would protect companies like Wells Fargo that used 
arbitration clauses and class action bans to create fraudulent 
accounts, overcharge customers with debit fees and mortgages and avoid 
responsibility for misconduct. H.J. Res 111 would remove federal 
protections for members of the military from evictions and 
repossessions while they are on active duty. And, H.J. Res. 111 would 
deny consumers the ability to get fair compensation for harm.
  For those reasons, and more, we urge you to reject a resolution that 
shields companies from responsibility for risky and illegal conduct.
  Today is another example to show the American people just how much 
Republicans want to rig the system for the powerful. A vote FOR this 
resolution is a vote to rig the rules to take money from the pockets of 
the American people and put it into the pockets of the financial 
sector.
  H.J. Res. 111 puts the profits of banks, student loan, car loan and 
mobile wireless providers, credit card companies, payday lenders, debt 
collectors over the fair treatment of the American people.
  How?
  For far too long, people's legal rights have been limited by the use 
of forced arbitration clauses in contracts for consumer financial 
products and services. Forced arbitration clauses, also called 
mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clauses, prevent cheated or defrauded 
American consumers from going to court to challenge wrongdoing.
  If your bank opens a fake account in your name, if your student loan 
lender refuses to adjust your loan due to your loss of income, if your 
bank re-orders your debit transactions to maximize overdraft fees, it 
was frequently impossible for you to join with others to sue the bank 
as part of a class action.
  But two weeks ago, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau responded 
to demands from consumers and changed the rules to protect consumers. 
The Consumer Bureau told banks and lenders they cannot keep their 
customers out of court. Class action lawsuits must be allowed. And, the 
Consumer Bureau ended the secrecy that surrounds the arbitration 
courts. Companies must report court filings, arbitration filings and 
rulings.
  The vast majority of the American people, consumer groups like the 
Consumer Federation of America, the Military Coalition, and even 
conservative groups oppose forced arbitration.
  A vote AGAINST H.J. Res. 111 is a vote to allow people to receive 
adequate compensation for fraud, deceptive and predatory practices.
  A vote AGAINST H.J. Res. 111 is a vote to give Americans their 
constitutional right to access the legal process.
  Please join me in voting against H.J. Res. 111.
  I include in the Record various statement of opposition to the joint 
resolution.

             [From National Consumer Law Center, July 2017]

               Summary of CFPB Rule on Forced Arbitration

       The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has issued 
     a rule addressing the use of forced arbitration clauses in 
     the fine print of financial contracts. The rule has two 
     components:
       1) Restores consumers' day in court and accountability when 
     companies engage in widespread violations of the law. 
     Contracts that have forced arbitration clauses will not be 
     permitted to ban consumers from banding together by joining 
     or bringing class actions involving consumer financial 
     services.
       2) Brings transparency to the secretive arbitration 
     process. Companies that use forced arbitration in individual 
     cases must report court filings, arbitration claims and 
     rulings and other information to the CFPB (with identifying 
     information redacted) so that the CFPB can study the impact 
     of forced arbitration in individual cases.
       The rule applies to the core consumer financial markets 
     involving lending money, storing money, and moving or 
     exchanging money. With some exceptions, the rule would cover 
     most:
       Loans and credit, including credit cards, payday loans, 
     student loans, and auto loans (auto finance companies, not 
     auto dealers, except some buy-here/pay-here dealers). 
     Mortgages are already prohibited from having forced 
     arbitration clauses. Providing leads, referrals, purchasing, 
     selling and servicing credit are covered.
       Bank accounts, prepaid cards, money transfer services and 
     apps and remittances.
       Credit reporting, credit scores, credit monitoring.
       Credit repair, debt management, debt settlement, and debt 
     relief services, including those that purport to avoid 
     foreclosure. This includes debt relief involving. medical 
     debt, taxes, and other kinds of debt even if not credit 
     related.
       Check cashing, check collection, check guaranty services.
       Auto leases, but not auto dealers who assign their leases.
       Debt collection and payment processing related to these 
     products or services.
       Mobile wireless providers that allow third party charges 
     through the wireless bill.
       Key areas that are not covered include:
       Auto dealers (other than somebuy-here/pay-here dealers), 
     such as claims related to discrimination, add-ons, lemon 
     laws, odometer fraud, or deception about a car's history.
       For:profit colleges and trade schools, unless the school 
     directly makes loans.
       Credit cards, bank accounts and other products begun before 
     the rule goes into effect.
       Services offered directly by governments or tribes to 
     members within their jurisdiction. The rule does apply to 
     tribal payday lenders who offer products off-reservation.
       Investment products and services by entities regulated by 
     the SEC.
       Individuals and others who offer a product or service to 25 
     or fewer consumers a year.
       Nonfinancial products and services, like nursing homes, 
     cable/mobile providers (except for third party charges on 
     bills), employers, or store payment plans that don't charge.
       The rule applies to new contracts entered into 211 days 
     after a final rule is published (likely Spring of 2018) and 
     older contracts that are purchased or acquired after that 
     date.
                                                    July 25, 2017.
     Re OPPOSE H.J. Res. 111, Congressional Review Act resolution 
         to repeal CFPB arbitration rule and block future reform 
         of forced arbitration.

     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: Americans for Financial Reform and 
     Public Citizen write to urge your opposition to H.J. Res. 
     111, the resolution to repeal the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Bureau (CFPB)'s arbitration rule under the 
     Congressional Review Act (CRA) and block a similar future 
     rule to protect consumers. This extreme legislative measure 
     would harm the public by insulating bad actors from 
     accountability when they systematically defraud consumers, 
     and give lawbreakers a competitive edge in the marketplace as 
     a result.
       Based on five years of careful study and consideration 
     mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
     Protection Act of 2010, this rule is the result of a 
     Congressional directive instructing the agency to restrict or 
     ban forced arbitration if it found the practice harmful to 
     consumers. The rule centers on two commonsense measures: 1) 
     it restores the right of consumers to join together in court 
     by prohibiting class action bans, ensuring consumers can hold 
     banks accountable for widespread harm, and 2) it brings 
     transparency to individual arbitration by publishing claims 
     and outcomes with sensitive information redacted, ensuring 
     banks can no longer cover up illegal behavior.
       According to a 2016 poll conducted by Pew Charitable 
     Trusts, nearly 90% of consumers want their right to join 
     together in class action lawsuits restored. Indeed, more than 
     100,000 individual consumers across the country wrote in to 
     support the rule during its public comment period, as did the 
     Military Coalition, representing 5.5 million servicemembers. 
     Two weeks ago, 310 consumer, civil rights, faith, and labor 
     organizations wrote to support the final rule.
       All available data supports the conclusion that class 
     action lawsuits hold bad actors accountable and enable harmed 
     consumers to be made whole. Without the option to join 
     together, just 25 consumers with claims of less than $1,000 
     pursue arbitration each year. In contrast, class actions 
     returned $2.2 billion to 34 million Americans between 2008 
     and 2012, after deducting attorneys' fees and court costs. An 
     independent study conducted by a former clerk for Justice 
     Scalia reached similar conclusions, finding ``even the 
     harshest critics of consumer class actions would have to 
     concede that the picture it paints is a fairly successful 
     one.''
       While bank lobbyists suggest that consumers recover more 
     money in arbitration than class actions, these claims are 
     misleading at best and brazenly dishonest at worst. Even with 
     class action bans currently a widespread presence in customer 
     contracts, available data shows consumers still recover $440 
     million more in class actions than arbitration every year, 
     with nearly 7 million consumers receiving cash relief 
     annually. Class actions also often result in injunctive 
     relief and systemic reforms that benefit consumers who are 
     not members of the class.
       Big banks and lenders prefer forced arbitration precisely 
     because the vast majority of consumers cannot and do not 
     pursue claims in that forum. Though bank lobbyists loudly 
     proclaim that consumers recover an average of $5,400 in 
     arbitration, they neglect to mention that this number is 
     based on just sixteen consumers per year who receive any 
     relief in arbitration, across all fifty states. Because 
     arbitration is so time and resource-intensive for consumers 
     compared to class action lawsuits, the consumers that choose 
     to pursue arbitration tend to have high-dollar claims backed 
     by strong evidence--and even these sixteen consumers recover 
     an average of just nine cents for every dollar claimed.

[[Page 11506]]

       It is no wonder that the financial industry prefers 
     arbitration when consumers receive a total of just $86,216 
     per year. If Wells Fargo had to pay $5,400 each to even a 
     small percentage of the thousands of customers defrauded in 
     its fraudulent account scandal, surely it would switch sides 
     in this debate. But forced arbitration not only allows banks 
     and lenders to keep millions in illegal profits, it 
     affirmatively lines their pockets with large awards paid out 
     by consumers.
       The same study that found sixteen consumers recover a total 
     of $86,216 in arbitration per year also found that banks and 
     lenders receive more than a million dollars per year paid out 
     to them by their customers in forced arbitration. While 
     sixteen consumers recover an average of $5,400 in arbitration 
     every year, banks and lenders receive an average award of 
     $13,195 when they win--and they win 93% of the time. Indeed, 
     a recent report found that consumers paid more restitution to 
     Wells Fargo in arbitration than the other way around between 
     2009 and 2016, the prime years of its fake account scandal.
       In addition to the high payouts banks and lenders receive 
     in arbitration, the Wells Fargo scandal demonstrates how 
     financial companies use secret arbitration proceedings to 
     keep misconduct out of the public eye. After the CFPB led a 
     $185 million enforcement action against the bank for opening 
     as many as 3.5 million fraudulent accounts and credit cards, 
     reports revealed that customers had been trying to sue Wells 
     Fargo over fake accounts since at least 2013. Yet the bank's 
     lawyers used arbitration clauses buried in the fine print of 
     the customers' other legitimate account contracts to force 
     allegations of fraud out of public court--and the bank 
     continued to profit from its illegal scheme for years.
       Finally, real-life experience shows that restoring consumer 
     class action rights will not increase costs or decrease 
     availability of credit. Consumers saw no increase in price 
     after Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Capital One, and HSBC 
     dropped their forced arbitration clauses as a result of 
     court-approved settlements. Similarly, mortgage rates did not 
     increase after Congress banned forced arbitration in the 
     mortgage market.
       The CFPB arbitration rule will ensure that bad actors 
     cannot turn fraud into a viable profit model to the detriment 
     of law abiding institutions, including the many community 
     banks and credit unions that largely do not include 
     arbitration clauses in their customer contracts. This new 
     rule simply allows consumers to enforce rights deemed crucial 
     by state and federal protections and increases accountability 
     and transparency, making the financial system stronger and 
     safer for all of us. We urge you to reject H.J. Res. 111 and 
     allow this data-driven, commonsense rule to take effect.
           Sincerely,

                                Americans for Financial Reform

     & Public Citizen.
                                  ____


            [From U.S. News and World Report, July 21, 2017]

                       The GOP's Foolish Decision

                            (By Dean Clancy)

       Those who support overturning the arbitration rule are on 
     the same side as corporate wrongdoers and sexual harassers.
       Minimizing ``lawsuit abuse'' has long been a GOP priority. 
     But overturning the anti-forced arbitration regulation issued 
     this week by Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as 
     congressional Republican leaders are reportedly rushing to 
     do, would be a political and policy mistake.
       Forced arbitration clauses waive a customer's right to sue 
     a company in case of a dispute. The fine-print provisions can 
     be found nowadays in seemingly every contract we agree to, 
     and every app we download.
       Business lobbyists defend the clauses as voluntary 
     agreements that minimize ``lawsuit abuse'' by ``greedy'' 
     class-action trial attorneys. But in reality, the clauses are 
     often imposed on consumers without informed consent, and are 
     increasingly being used to shield corporate wrongdoing.
       The new rule protects Americans from the negative effects 
     of forced arbitration clauses in a host of financial 
     contracts, such as credit cards, bank accounts and payday 
     loans. The clauses are already banned in mortgages and real 
     estate.
       News reports suggest the House may vote as soon as next 
     week on a formal ``resolution of disapproval'' of the CFPB 
     regulation, which was authorized by Congress in 2010, 
     formally proposed in 2016 and finalized this week.
       A resolution of disapproval enables Congress to kill a 
     federal regulation within 60 legislative session days 
     following its formal publication, by means of a quick up-or-
     down, simple-majority vote, with no chance of amendment or 
     filibuster. If the regulation is disapproved by the House, 
     the Senate and the president, it is dead and may not be 
     reissued. This procedure has been used successfully to 
     overturn fourteen regulations to date, all but one of them in 
     the past six months.
       Last week when CFPB announced the new rule, prominent 
     Beltway Republicans cried foul: Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, 
     chairman of the powerful House banking committee, denounced 
     the reg as a ``big, wet kiss'' to the trial lawyers. Sen. Tom 
     Cotton of Arkansas vowed to kill the regulation swiftly.
       The U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged Congress to kill not 
     only this regulation, but every CFPB rule, on grounds the 
     agency is unconstitutional and and therefore all of its 
     actions are invalid.
       The GOP would be terribly foolish to go down this road, for 
     three reasons. Forced arbitration is: (1) unconscionable; (2) 
     unconstitutional and (3) a big political loser.
       1. Unconscionable. Here are some examples of the kind of 
     behavior CFPB's reg is trying to prevent.
       Wells Fargo Bank admitted its employees systematically 
     created millions of sham bank accounts in its customers' 
     names, and then in many cases fraudulently billed those same 
     customers for fees and services they never agreed to. 
     Executives of the megabank knew this was happening but did 
     nothing. Then, they decided to blame 5,300 ``rogue employees, 
     who were summarily fired. Now, to ward off thousands of 
     lawsuits, the company is hiding behind binding arbitration 
     clauses in its victims' contracts.
       Roger Ailes, the now-deceased executive of Fox News, was 
     accused, before his death, by multiple female employees of 
     sexual harassment. To keep the women's allegations out of 
     court, and to forestall a long line of past accusers from 
     taking the witness stand, he invoked clauses in his 
     employees' hiring contracts requiring any disputes be handled 
     through a private, highly secretive arbitration process.
       Military readiness has been negatively affected by 
     unscrupulous payday lenders who prey on military 
     servicemembers and veterans. The victims become overly 
     indebted thanks to exorbitant interest rates and hidden fees 
     they don't understand, and then find themselves unable to 
     obtain relief thanks to forced-arbitration clauses. Because 
     of this, the Military Coalition, which represents nearly 6 
     million uniformed service members, veterans and their 
     families, has formally petitioned Congress to ban the 
     clauses.
       2. Unconstitutional. Question: If binding arbitration 
     clauses are so bad, why are they so common? Because a series 
     of Supreme Court rulings (the most recent one in May) have 
     effectively overturned the traditional common-law 
     understanding of arbitration. In past centuries, arbitration 
     was understood as a voluntary option that is fair only when 
     both parties are of roughly equal bargaining power or else 
     have agreed to it freely after a dispute has arisen.
       In lieu of that reasonable understanding, the Court has 
     substituted a doctrinaire ``right of contract'' that allows a 
     powerful party to effectively force a weaker party to waive 
     his or her constitutional right to sue, before a dispute has 
     arisen and often without informed consent. This 
     transformation defies common sense and severely weakens 
     Americans' Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
       Today, arbitration has devolved into a private star-chamber 
     that's stacked in favor of the accused corporation--which, 
     unsurprisingly, usually wins.
       Is the CFPB itself unconstitutional? Yes, in my opinion. 
     But so is forced arbitration. And Congress has a duty to 
     protect our right to a jury trial.
       Instead of lashing out at the agency by overturning this 
     regulation, Congress should do the right thing and amend the 
     Federal Arbitration Act to make binding arbitration 
     agreements truly voluntary for all Americans, as the 
     Constitution requires. Having done so, it could then, at its 
     leisure, reform (or, as I would prefer, abolish) the 
     controversial agency.
       3. A Political Loser. Those who vote to overturn the CFPB 
     regulation will be placing themselves on the side of accused 
     sexual harassers, corporate wrongdoers and unscrupulous 
     payday lenders who exploit our troops.
       If Republicans are politically sensible--or just have an 
     ounce of self-respect--they'll take the high road and let 
     this reasonable rule stand.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 184, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 410]

                               YEAS--229

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)

[[Page 11507]]


     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--184

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bass
     Brooks (AL)
     Cheney
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis, Danny
     Duncan (SC)
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Langevin
     Meadows
     Napolitano
     Renacci
     Richmond
     Scalise
     Wittman

                              {time}  1330

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. WITTMAN. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 410.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in a meeting 
with the Chief of Naval Operations. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 410.
  Stated against:
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 410 I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233, 
noes 188, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 411]

                               AYES--233

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--188

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard

[[Page 11508]]


     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bass
     Brooks (AL)
     Costello (PA)
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis, Danny
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Meadows
     Napolitano
     Renacci
     Scalise

                              {time}  1337

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________